7 ms·

There's a gray area where someone consented regrettably, say as a brief stint on OnlyFans until they realized how pictures travel. I wonder how Meta will rule o

There's a gray area where someone consented regrettably, say as a brief stint on OnlyFans until they realized how pictures travel. I wonder how Meta will rule on those

polyomino 5y ago
That's not a gray area. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  Consent during a sex act and consent to an image that you created continuing to exist after you knowingly release it into the wild are two different things. (Not including revenge porn or other nonconsensual recordings, obviously). An actor who performs in an embarrassingly bad movie might wish they could refuse to let their work be used after the fact, but they already signed away their right to retract their work. An OnlyFans model is also the creator of the content though, so they might have more leverage depending on OF's legal terms. If they still own the rights to all media they create and distribute through OF, then they could petition for removal based on DMCA or something (I'm not a lawyer but it sounds plausible). Morally, I hope FB can help regretful adult models remove content of themselves if they don't want it to exist anymore. But practically, that will be very difficult to guarantee.
- megous 5y ago
  Consent? Yes. Images? No.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Any time? Can you withdraw consent after the fact and claim rape? If you are going to use categorical language, please be more careful about the language you use to describe a black and white world.
- khazhoux 5y ago
  The platform can stop hosting some content immediately once consent is withdrawn, but it can't prevent that content from having already escaped. It's probably not technically a "gray area" since the platform can't ensure the content doesn't escape. But certainly, content creators should be aware that withdrawing consent doesn't mean their content is suddenly secured.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  During the act, yes. But I think the example here is basically: In your 20s you did some jobs as a porn star. 5 years later you want the videos scrubbed from the web. Is this within your rights? That's what OnlyFans images are.
  - kjeetgill 5y ago
    In the case of Onlyfans I'd imagine you've in violation of someone's copyright when images get passed around.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Depends on who owns the rights. Most UGC sites terms give them perpetual rights to distribute content as part of their services. Some take ownership of the IP. Most also let you remove your own content. If the performer owns the IP then they are completely within their rights to remove it where others infringes them. Whether that’s to protect their own commercial operation or because they don’t want those images in public anymore.
salt-thrower 5y ago
Morally, it would make sense for content creators (the creator and owner of an image, say an Onlyfans model who took a selfie) to be able to flag a picture for removal if they decide they don't want it to be shared anymore. Technologically that would be very difficult to implement and guarantee, but I'd imagine they would rule in favor of the creator in that case. I don't think a user should be banned or penalized for sharing said image since they may be unaware the model is trying to retract it. But no reason not to try respecting the creator's wishes.
- Guest42 5y ago
  I wish there was a methodology whereby a person could remove their personal data from fb given that they were unaware of what they were consenting to and that it changed over time.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    Same here. I joined FB when I was 13 (over a decade ago) - I had no clue what I was signing up for.
IAmEveryone 5y ago
Posting on OF does imply consent to be seen naked. But since it doesn’t come with a license allowing redistribution, reposting those photos is never allowed. No gray area whatsoever.
- autoexec 5y ago
  Ownership rights must factor in somewhere right? If I pay an artist for a painting, and they deliver it to me and take my payment I can then sell that painting to someone else, display it on the walls of my home, show it to my friends, or even give it away. If I pay someone to send me a digital photograph or even a video shouldn't I have those same options? The whole thing seems like a weird grey mine field of legal and personal rights.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    It's called Copyright for a reason :) If you buy a painting from an artist, or a print from a photographer, can you turn around and scan that art and sell hundreds of copies? Usually not, you typically have purchased an individual copy of a work but not to make your own copies and redistribute.
    - autoexec 5y ago
      Copyright is itself filled with massive amounts of grey areas and is so overbroad that most people are regularly violating it just by living their daily lives. Some uses very clearly violate copyright, but in others it's not clear. If I bought a painting from a local artist and hung it on my wall, I wouldn't expect it to be impossible to post a picture of me standing in my living room on social media just because that painting happens to be hanging above my living room fireplace and I don't have a license to make or distribute copies. I don't think any automated process can determine what is okay or not. This isn't a problem I think we'll have easy answers for in tech and care must be taken to make sure that attempting to fix it using technical measures doesn't invite other abuses or infringe on other rights. Blindly accepting hashes and blocking them seems like it could make things very easy for social media companies but at a cost to the rest of us.

There's a gray area where someone consented regrettably, say as a brief stint on OnlyFans until they realized how pictures travel. I wonder how Meta will rule on those

polyomino 5y ago

That's not a gray area. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.

salt-thrower 5y ago
Consent during a sex act and consent to an image that you created continuing to exist after you knowingly release it into the wild are two different things. (Not including revenge porn or other nonconsensual recordings, obviously). An actor who performs in an embarrassingly bad movie might wish they could refuse to let their work be used after the fact, but they already signed away their right to retract their work. An OnlyFans model is also the creator of the content though, so they might have more leverage depending on OF's legal terms. If they still own the rights to all media they create and distribute through OF, then they could petition for removal based on DMCA or something (I'm not a lawyer but it sounds plausible). Morally, I hope FB can help regretful adult models remove content of themselves if they don't want it to exist anymore. But practically, that will be very difficult to guarantee.
megous 5y ago
Consent? Yes. Images? No.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Any time? Can you withdraw consent after the fact and claim rape? If you are going to use categorical language, please be more careful about the language you use to describe a black and white world.
khazhoux 5y ago
The platform can stop hosting some content immediately once consent is withdrawn, but it can't prevent that content from having already escaped. It's probably not technically a "gray area" since the platform can't ensure the content doesn't escape. But certainly, content creators should be aware that withdrawing consent doesn't mean their content is suddenly secured.
xboxnolifes 5y ago
During the act, yes. But I think the example here is basically: In your 20s you did some jobs as a porn star. 5 years later you want the videos scrubbed from the web. Is this within your rights? That's what OnlyFans images are.
- kjeetgill 5y ago
  In the case of Onlyfans I'd imagine you've in violation of someone's copyright when images get passed around.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Depends on who owns the rights. Most UGC sites terms give them perpetual rights to distribute content as part of their services. Some take ownership of the IP. Most also let you remove your own content. If the performer owns the IP then they are completely within their rights to remove it where others infringes them. Whether that’s to protect their own commercial operation or because they don’t want those images in public anymore.

salt-thrower 5y ago

Morally, it would make sense for content creators (the creator and owner of an image, say an Onlyfans model who took a selfie) to be able to flag a picture for removal if they decide they don't want it to be shared anymore. Technologically that would be very difficult to implement and guarantee, but I'd imagine they would rule in favor of the creator in that case. I don't think a user should be banned or penalized for sharing said image since they may be unaware the model is trying to retract it. But no reason not to try respecting the creator's wishes.

Guest42 5y ago
I wish there was a methodology whereby a person could remove their personal data from fb given that they were unaware of what they were consenting to and that it changed over time.
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  Same here. I joined FB when I was 13 (over a decade ago) - I had no clue what I was signing up for.

IAmEveryone 5y ago

Posting on OF does imply consent to be seen naked. But since it doesn’t come with a license allowing redistribution, reposting those photos is never allowed. No gray area whatsoever.

autoexec 5y ago
Ownership rights must factor in somewhere right? If I pay an artist for a painting, and they deliver it to me and take my payment I can then sell that painting to someone else, display it on the walls of my home, show it to my friends, or even give it away. If I pay someone to send me a digital photograph or even a video shouldn't I have those same options? The whole thing seems like a weird grey mine field of legal and personal rights.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  It's called Copyright for a reason :) If you buy a painting from an artist, or a print from a photographer, can you turn around and scan that art and sell hundreds of copies? Usually not, you typically have purchased an individual copy of a work but not to make your own copies and redistribute.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    Copyright is itself filled with massive amounts of grey areas and is so overbroad that most people are regularly violating it just by living their daily lives. Some uses very clearly violate copyright, but in others it's not clear. If I bought a painting from a local artist and hung it on my wall, I wouldn't expect it to be impossible to post a picture of me standing in my living room on social media just because that painting happens to be hanging above my living room fireplace and I don't have a license to make or distribute copies. I don't think any automated process can determine what is okay or not. This isn't a problem I think we'll have easy answers for in tech and care must be taken to make sure that attempting to fix it using technical measures doesn't invite other abuses or infringe on other rights. Blindly accepting hashes and blocking them seems like it could make things very easy for social media companies but at a cost to the rest of us.